The renovated Flamboyant Room in the Philipsburg Courthouse.
PHILIPSBURG--The Court of Appeals on Monday sentenced a 25-year-old resident of Philipsburg to forty hours of community service, on two years’ probation, for misappropriation of a Kia Sportage. The court also ordered the confiscation of the stolen vehicle.
Suspect A.A.W., who did not appear in court to hear the verdict in his case, was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle on May 14, 2020.
During the appeal hearing, the solicitor general demanded that the Court of Appeals find the suspect guilty of the fencing of stolen property and requested confiscation of the vehicle.
W.’s lawyer Geert Hatzmann pleaded with the court to acquit the defendant for lack of evidence. He said that his client did not know or suspect that the vehicle was obtained through crime.
During police questioning, W. said he had purchased the Kia Sportage from a man, identified as “Sabastian”, whom he had met on the street. He bought the car for his father against payment of 15,000 euros.
During the appeal hearing, W. stated that he purchased the car from C.J.B., whose name was also mentioned in the bill of sale. W. said he did not know this person. He paid the 15,000 euros in cash and did not ask this person for identification or other data.
W. told the court that he was very experienced in buying and selling cars. He said that 15,000 euros was a good deal for this car, which was damaged, but would have been worth 23,000 to 30,000 euros once repaired.
According to the suspect, there were no traces of theft. He did not carry out any further investigation of the car, because he did not expect such a car to have been stolen.
The Appeals Court agreed with the lawyer and the solicitor general that it could not be proven that the suspect knew or consciously accepted the “considerable chance” that the car originated in crime. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of intentional fencing.
The suspect bought the car on the street from an unknown person, which he paid for in cash without asking for the seller’s personal details such as his name, address or telephone number, which were also not mentioned in the bill of sale, the Appeals Court stated.
The suspect also did not investigate the origin of the car, the court said. “For example, he did not ask the seller where he bought the car, or ask about a previous purchase contract, this while the suspect had a lot of experience with buying and selling cars. In addition, the suspect stated that he knew that the sale price of the car was a good deal, given the special characteristics of the vehicle,” the Court of Appeals stated in the verdict.
In the light of these circumstances, the court found that the suspect did not observe the required care that may be expected when buying a used car and did not fulfil his duty to investigate the vehicle’s origin.
“In doing so, the suspect has contributed to maintaining a market for stolen goods, which promotes theft and causes damage to the victims,” the three-judge panel stated.
The solicitor general only demanded confiscation of the stolen vehicle, but since W. is a used-car dealer, the punishment should deter him from re-engaging in stolen goods.
Therefore, the court imposed a conditional community service, which W. must perform if he commits another crime during the two-year probation period. If he fails to do the community service, he will have to spend 20 days in prison, the Appeals Court stated.
“There is a lot of trade in stolen cars in St. Maarten. This case is a kind of warning for the public in St. Maarten to be vigilant,” the solicitor general said.
